The History and Philosophy of Copyright

[@cnlicnli]

This is one of the best overviews on copyright! Filmmaker IQ’s dedication to respond to all comments/questions further helps understand US copyright law, its history, and the Berne Convention. I would identify today’s US copyright as having exclusive rather than monopoly rights. If copyrights were monopoly rights, then there could not be any Fair Use affirmative defenses (rights) to comment on, create parodies, and perform other Fair Use actions. If you’re a creative professional, you typically want copyright protection to help sustain a living. If you’re a consumer user of films, music, software, art, photo, and other creative works, you want all those media to be free and available on-demand via a click. Many of us will eagerly wait in line and pay $800+ for a new iPhone, Mac, 60-inch flat screen, and other (new) technologies, but certainly not for its accompanying intangible properties, like software, Hollywood films, music, Google-located photographs & graphics, etc.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You're right - calling them Monopoly rights is sort of a mislabel. It's sort of like saying if you own a house and you decide to sell it, you have a monopoly on the market of your house. It's not exactly like that but the idea similar. Exclusive Rights is a better term. The good news is despite the amount of vehement anti-copyright comments we get, I think most people understand at least intuitively that piracy is not the "best" way to do things. Given *EASY* and *AFFORDABLE* options to pay for content, many people would prefer to use them. That's why iTunes, Netflix and Amazon are such huge successes (not that that may not come with it's own issues) But on the other hand, the way people use the internet lends to a much broader application of fair use with it's "sharing culture". Anyhow, thanks for the comment. This is a topic I'm obsessed with and I'm very concerned that only certain kind of voices on the topic are being represented on the internet.

[@kimsonpro]

There never has been a channel which I hit likes on every single videos & watch for the whole 20 minutes EACH. Extremely awesome content

[@kimsonpro]

awesomeferret you must have seen the word "each", which I already put on Caption mode?

[@stefanosk27]

I like the fact that you spend so much time discussing a particular subject, it makes me actually sit and think rather than trying to catch up with a super-fast paced 4min video, like most youtube clips out there.

[@ryanfwood]

Truly fantastic. Thank you. The research and effort you put into these explanations is beautiful, elegant, and unbiased. Taking things from their inception up to modern day to understand the climate and reasoning is the depth of understanding that is important for a channel like this, and an excellent jumping off point for continued learning. We live in the age of Nerdwriter (who I appreciate), where film analysis on youtube is reduced to formulaic, quasi-edutainment, that tries to make you feel smart. But nothing beats a tight twenty five minute lecture from a guy who really spent some time to figure something out. I especially love how you were unsatisfied with what current information was out there about U.S. copyright which was manipulated by previous political action and how you understand the nature of the internet as a source. So, thanks. What you do is important. It's not tailored to consistently get millions of views, but the people who do watch are so greatly advantaged because of you. Keep on.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Wow - your words are greatly appreciated! Thank you so much!

[@drea4407]

Thank you! As an art lawyer, there are few resources this honest about copyright law and informative. Fantastic job.

[@D.S.handle]

The Civ 5 technology three visual reference was a really nice touch.

[@ThinkingArtEntertainment]

Hey y'all - thought you guys might be interested in this short we made for Halloween this year. Filmed for less than $100 on the Canon 5d mk3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/boW0ZoGJrM2CaNE

[@RJHEllis]

I thought copyright started with the Statue of Anne. This was a PHENOMENAL VIDEO! Great great stuff

[@AntoinetteChanel]

I’m an author and publisher, and this taught me so much. Thanks!

[@ishbanyadav]

As a fellow youtuber i feel a bit sad for copyright strikes on youtubers too.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

We've been on both sides, been unfairly struck for fair use material and also had content flat out stolen and reposted completely unedited.

[@johnb2654]

Its good. But I really like John's presentation style and the history that he gives with the subject.

[@rhettorical]

It saddens me to think that most people point to CGPGrey's video as the definitive statement about copyright, when it's clearly slanted in favor of blaming copyright extension on the corporate bogeyman. This video explains so much context and makes everything make sense.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I agonized whether or not to call out that video... eventually leaving it out completely. That video is one of the most reckless and ill-thought pieces in what otherwise is pretty even handed channel. On this topic CGPGrey is just not just wrong - he's dangerously wrong. Even his whole thought experiment about how greed is preventing more Star Wars movies from being made right now being completely falsified by Disney's plans to release a Star Wars movie every year until life no longer exists on this planet :P I can't understate how difficult it was to find information that wasn't pure legal academia - everyone jumps from the Copyright Act of 1790 to the Copyright Act of 1976. There is never any mention of Berne, never any mention of why we go from a fixed number to something as nebulous as "life of author" and certainly never mention of international concerns. Everything was always couched in anti-corporate and anti-American language. And ultimately the irony that the mascot of the corporate bogeyman Mickey Mouse even has most of his early cartoons freely available without advertising on Disney Animation's Official KZbin Channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHPKmJukhqtpe5Y

[@rhettorical]

I had actually never heard of Berne before this video, nor did I realize that US copyright law had so much "catching up" to do. When you explain the way that Continental Europe views property, it makes a ton of sense. It doesn't match American ideal so much, where generations tend to be more independent from one another and property rights aren't so universal, but in Europe, where family and property are everything, it's only natural that that's how copyright law would be written. Thanks for the video and for your response!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Truth is I hadn't heard of Berne either until I started really digging into research. That's how pernicious the "copyright debate" has gotten - that they leave out entire swaths of history.

[@TheWatchFrame]

I might be biased but I've been involved in copyright issues for over 15 years now and from almost day one have been aware of the Berne Convention we in our company talk about all the time. True that the philosophy behind is not well known, but at the level of open licensing communities it is a well known agreement. The thing is that people don't understand nor care many times about copyright at almost any level anymore and fair use is not a world wide "legal defense" feature. Actually fair use, which is great, is also a big danger as can be used knowing that is a defense against a claim, so not a legislative proper right. Fair use is also under global attack by big media companies and so is the right to private copy and right to quote. So it's a very complex problem that's been taken to such extrem that even the ones of us how use Creative Commons licenses to allow the spread of our works are under risk of not being able to use them with our public domain intent.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Mario Pena if you are involved with copyright issues as per your job then of course you would have dealt with the Berne Convention. But my research using layman articles and resources found a distinctive and purposeful dismissal on the topic. Copyright has a lot of complex issues that need to be dealt with but I've seen a nonstop stream of commenters that just want to dismantle the whole thing without really having the basis of understanding of what it is and how we got here.

[@alejoparedes2388]

3000 dead because someone copied a book? Damn...

[@usernameunknown564]

Alejo Paredes better be a good book xD

[@IvaVlah]

And... both of them, Columba and Finnian became saints after not turning the other cheek and causing 3000 people dead.

[@Tobbeh99]

+Asian non-asian I mean St. Columba said it was "the word of god".

[@Tmansgokarts]

.... John, this was an outstanding video.

[@mrmarmellow555]

What About the Korean and Japanese they have had a literate Society of printing way longer than Europe even?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

What about it? They didn't develop a copyright system that the entire world now uses.

[@warrenbradford2597]

@@FilmmakerIQ They imported it since their westernization.

[@jeabo0adhd]

Nice to see new videos being made. Been a fan for several years!

[@NatesFilmTutorials]

A new Video from Filmmaker IQ! Gonna watch this tonight! Grab the popcorn

[@maxsaltin1001]

The knowledge you bring to us is intangible. Thank you for your great work.

[@raisavega5415]

🎉a🎉z🎉z🎉🎉z🎉z🎉🎉z🎉

[@raisavega5415]

🎉

[@KowboyUSA]

Nice piece. I wasn't aware of some of the very early history of _right to copy._

[@KokoRicky]

I was thinking that and it makes you realize how often a word's meaning has a literal origin.

[@Carbon4343]

With regards to public domain vs regal land ownership, it might also be worth touching on the core diametrics of rex lex vs lex rex. Keep up the great work John!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I had to look that up - interesting concept.

[@ripig111]

Very interesting, even to a non-filmmaker. I enjoy all of your videos.

[@pdrg]

Another really clear and well researched and presented film, John. Thank you. I think a possible problem with the far longer terms is that little is reaching the public domain any more, and that that is contrary to the original ideals. Still paying a license fee to the estate of Agatha Christie isn't encouraging her to write more books, and she was active both sides of the 1923 changes. A minefield of a topic, and your context was interesting.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Agatha Christa wrote from Britain. The English Copyright Act 1842 set the copyright period for the lifetime of the author plus 7 years, or for 42 years from first publication, whichever was longer. By 1911, it was set to life + 50 years to fit inside Berne. So by the time Christie was writing she would enjoyed pretty much the full extent of copyright protection we have today. But it's a mistake to think of copyright only in terms of commercial quid pro quo. Modern copyright considers Author's Moral Rights. Once Christie's books are public domain - anyone one can legitimately write a best selling book where Poirot is a deviant closeted Nazi Sympathizer and no one can do anything about it. That's perfectly fine two generations past her death as probably no one alive knew her very well. But if it's less than parody, it might be a real problem if it was a character your grand mother created and you still have fresh memories of spending time with her. Of course you could always sign away the rights to the guy writing about the deviant closeted Nazi Sympathizer and make a quick buck - that is your right as well if you're the copyright holder. The thing is, it's still YOUR choice - at least for 2 generations. The final thing I have to say about public domain is I'm not sure the public domain is as valuable as some people make it out to be. Yes, we need heritage and every should eventually go into the public domain. Yes there are also some very real issues regarding orphan works. But ideas are not copyrightable - only the expressed version of the ideas. So you can be inspired by a public domain book just as much as a modern book and still go and create your own original piece. If you look around, there's tons of media being created today (how many Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, Starz Originals are there?). People are publishing like crazy... I doubt if more books fell into public domain we'd see any _more_ creative works. People don't create because they can copy old works.... people create because they are inspired to create and copyright enables us to make it actually pay.

[@GeneralVariety]

A lot of work went into this, and you can tell. Such an amazing level of research and high-quality filmmaking here!

[@DrakeStrike]

One of my Favorite Channels :D Love seeing a Filmmaker IQ video popping up in my subscription feed.

[@RoadtrippinwithTakacs]

Super educational as usual. Keep it up! 👍

[@faveritzakount3831]

Wow, this video is of TREMENDOUS value! Thank you so much!!

[@weirdweirdmedia]

The term limit is way too long. I think you can argue that with the increasing pervasiveness of content, public ownership should increase. How long have Mickey Mouse and Superman and Batman been shoved down our throats in all forms of media, in toys, in cereals and product tie-ins? These companies spend so much marketing these things to us that we grow up with them with no choice in the matter. But we can get cease and desists on fan films, we can get our critiques pulled for using clips from pretty much anything that isn’t in promo material, we risk getting sued for making any amount of money on art we have created if it includes some product of pop culture that our art couldn’t exist without. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to learn about Batman. Batman just WAS. He’s existed over two times as long as I’ve been alive. I can’t make and sell a self-published Batman comic, but I COULD make a movie where Dick gives a blowy to Bruce while Alfred meticulously fondles himself in the corner of the Batcave and probably turn a wicked profit. Which is to say that the laws are really not on the public’s side.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You need to remove the hyperbole from your comment. No one is "shoving" anything down your throat. That is just a plain idiotic statement on its face and it makes upyour comment as an idiotic rant. Now the irony is that shorter copyright terms would INCREASE the amount of copycats, not decrease it. Despite what you think the laws are very much on the public's side.

[@lp-xl9ld]

This really cleared up quite a few questions I've had about this really important topic... thanks

[@mythdusterds]

This is really useful. I never knew most of this information before. It makes sense that copy right origins would be recorded back as far as the church. I am surprised it is not recorded as far back as the Egyptians Babylonians, Jewish culture or the Chinese.

[@schitlipz]

I'll have to get back to it, but so far so good. Awesome actually! I thoroughly enjoy your work.

[@lmiddleman]

The DMCA also introduced criminality to copyright law for the first time, at the same time legal creep pumped up statutory damages. The power of the state and jury trials, we get crazy stuff like Jammie Thomas-Rasset being saddled with nearly a $2M (later reduced) liability to a trade association for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's not true: Criminality has been present in US Copyright law since 1897 and on VHS tapes with FBI warnings long before the DMCA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States

[@lmiddleman]

I meant the introduction of criminality to acts beyond property rights, like doing specific kinds of math. The famous DeCSS case was/is germane to the film industry.

[@SlapstickGenius23]

I agree with Filmmaker IQ, Copyright has to be tailored for a changing world and needs to be in a perpetual state of catching up.

[@Profispojka]

Yes. The world has changed and copyright should be too be changed towards redistributing wealth from big corporations having huge profits from copyrighted works towards sharing knowledge and art.

[@davidpreston2772]

Magnificent work and very enlightening. Thanks you for your research and clear presentation of a complex subject.

[@dmitrykireew8941]

Love your content, really interesting topics

[@isruco]

Thank you for the educational video. As always, education is Paramount to human development and perpetuation.

[@ramenbowlproductions9479]

I love this channel, especially since I am an aspiring filmmaker.

[@Frisenette]

Damn you’re good! I’m flabbergasted by how you can make content of this quality for free. Or that is, for the pennies you get from here.

[@DrToonhattan]

You say in Europe the director of a film is considered its author. How does this apply to a TV series where different episodes may have different directors? Who is considered the author of the series as a whole?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+DrToonhattan that's a good question and I haven't been able to find a good answer. I would happen to guess the showrunner or original creator might be the considered the author.

[@musaran2]

I wonder : Does it encourages to hire younger or healthier directors ?

[@framerofworlds9984]

I think lifetime of the creator is ideal. What we have now is a bunch of people who had no creative input stockpiling the creative work of others. Having a healthy public domain is good for society.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Framer of worlds problem with just life of the author is what happens if the author suddenly dies? You need to have some post-mortem where its remains in copyright. Although copyright trolls are an issue we can't completely hear our stop brake system to limit their function because they will always exist regardless of how copyright is structured. Although I do agree that there needs to be a healthy public domain it's far more important to have a healthy fair use to protect speech in the public sphere as ultimately copyright does more to protect authors then the public domain.

[@Schmidtelpunkt]

The creator's death is such a random event. Why should the works of an aging creator be worth less than a those of a young one? Also the limit on what is possible to define seems rather unsharp when it just gets broken down to the age of the creator or the creation, leaving the issue of the cultural impact to the fuzzy rules of "fair use" aka "the right of the stronger" which allows companies with good lawyers to take everything but leaves small creators standing in the rain. A blockbuster like Star Wars clearly becomes sooner common cultural good than an unknown arthouse production, There needs to be some measure to reflect that, other than Lucasfilm/Disney just being too bored to come after each and every violation (or reserving that for the violations they like least).

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Herr Schmidt life of the author is to respect the moral rights of the author. Whatever you create... You own for your entire life whether you made it when you were young or old. Because of the unpredictability of lifetimes you have to tack on a few years - considered 2 generations to protect the heirs of the property. As for fair use. Yes we need stronger definition in the general population of fair use. But that really begins with better education of what copyright is. Too much online is focused on trying to erode copyright and not enough being made on the importance of fair use which is really where the battle lies. Lastly with something like Star Wars and trying to create a "cultural good"... It is the dream of every creator but why should the ultimate success result the stripping of your right and copy protection? Then where do you draw that line? Then there's the issue of how a cultural good would destroy the success. If something as phenomenally successful as Star Wars becomes publicly available, it won't be fans making fan films but big companies moving to capitalize... Warner Bros. Han Solo series, Sony's Leia Chronicles... There would be so much exploitation people would just lose interest in Star Wars. Instead of banishing a property like Star Wars to some common good, we just need more understanding of fair use. Disney lawyers don't get bored (they're lawyers after all). Disney knows that if they challenge every unauthorized use fair use or not, they will be doing damage to their brand. Ultimately it comes down the money. Make a fan film with your friends.. no one cares. Raise $100,000 on Kickstarter and you might get a cease and desist letter.

[@gunnaryoung]

Awesome as always.

[@DucatiKozak]

Another great essay, John! History does repeat itself! After watching today's Senate TechHearings the hijacking of social media is similar to the start of book publishing. And the enforcement of American copyright is as bad now with film as when British literature was 'pyrated' in early American history.

[@DucatiKozak]

I hope 'Fair Use' is part II of this v-essay.

[@Clay3613]

Many copyright laws are such bullshit, especially with newer media like video games and downloadable music.

[@alby83fox]

Greetings! You did deep study it is very interesting, thank you!

[@MarkusKretzschmarPhoto]

Wow! What an amazing Video. Thanks for the great work!!

[@Toonrick12]

THANK YOU! Disney has done many dickish things over the years, but breaking the Copyright system isn't one of those.

[@Profispojka]

Breaking the Copyright system IS one of them.

[@IvaVlah]

Extremely helpful and very interesting. Thank you!

[@johnb2654]

Very Cool. It would be great if you did a video on Fair Use. Thanks for creating this for us!

[@BenVost]

This is great - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXvRkJ15aauBetE

[@judyemmstoyradio3064]

It's become a New Years Day tradition for me to look up what becomes public domain in the new year. This year, films, books, and song compositions from 1924 became public domain. Fun fact: The Great Gatsby becomes public domain next year! :D

[@jayashrishobna]

Great video as always. I am not knowledgeable on this subject, but this is one of those things that no one will agree on, and there is no single definition of "fair". I have never understood why property or inheritance is a thing or why the wishes of the dead should be respected, it's all a completely arbitrary judgement that seems to somehow have become a norm. there is no reason why a company which invested in developing a piece of work should or shouldn't get to benefit off that for the next century, there's just no absolute way to argue what "should" happen. So it'll all come down to cultural norms and our average attitude toward individual ownership at this particular point in history

[@danaross]

Brilliant. Well done.

[@cholaempayar2037]

super awesome Sir John P.Hess, I wish I can work with him as AD

[@Sam31707]

I’m not complaining but why does my teacher keep making us watch your videos, the videos are good and informative but there’s other videos on video and audio production. like over the past 2 days he gave us 4 of your videos to watch, but like I said your videos are good Also we had to summarize the first two in like 200ish words

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Because other videos are not as comprehensive. Maybe you should stop complaining and do your homework. 200 words is nothing.

[@Sam31707]

@@FilmmakerIQ I wasn’t complaining and I realize that however I didn’t choose to take the class and I didn’t want to. This would also be the first two grades of the nine weeks so if it’s not good my grade goes down to whatever I make and if I don’t make an A on it that means I don’t get A honor role or money which I don’t need but are some of the highest priorities in my life. Thank you for reading my little rant ☺️

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You complain about writing 200 words... and yet your rant is 85 words - you're literally half way there.

[@Sam31707]

@@FilmmakerIQ getting to 200 words is easy however I couldn’t go past 300 I ended up with 270 but I cut out a lot

[@FilmmakerIQ]

All writing is just rewriting.

[@PolarTrance]

I think 50 years of copyright would be good enough. The number 50 might seem small and thus short, but considering we are all humans and usually die around 70 something, and around 20 years people start to actually publish relevant works, it ends up being a significant portion of your creative life. 50 years is also plenty of time to actually make a profit from your work, to argue that 50 years isn't enough time would mean either you really suck at selling your work or no one likes your work/unlucky which likely isn't going to change in the next 50 years after the first 50 years, so it wouldn't really matter if it was 20 years or 200 years. I personally disagree that copyright should help the later generations and or family of the author, because they didn't actually do anything.

[@victorytipsprogram4195]

Helpful video. Thank you. I am writing a self help book. Am I allowed to take something written on a psychology website and reword it for my own use? Thanks Vince

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You can take an idea and express it in your own way. Ideas are not copyrightable - only the expressed formation of those ideas. Now how closely your book reads like that psychology website might be a problem... so you better make sure what you write is coming from you and not just changing a few words here and there.

[@piyuspradhan]

I like your work

[@popocake]

Very interesting. What's your take on the libertarian argument against intellectual property? (very very briefly, that because ideas are non-scarce goods -- ie. you're not deprived of your copy of a text if I make an additional copy of the same text for myself as you would be deprived of your apple if I ate it for my own benefit -- then there shouldn't be laws protecting them, since the notion of "property" exists only to protect a good that's actually scarce).

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's an exceptionally weak argument because it makes a false assumption that intellectual property is non-scarce. I wish IP was non-scarce, I wish I could create more of these videos. I wish I could create more feature films. I wish I could write the every novel I ever had the inkling to write. But obviously I can't. To create such pieces of I need to employ scarce resources: equipment, money and most importantly, time (which go hand in hand with opportunity costs). Fundamentally Libertarianism is about property rights or at least that's how the system is maintained. If you copy my text, or movie _without my permission_ you deprive me of the benefit I could have received had we made a deal _for_ my permission. We may have never made that deal, my price may have been too high - but by copying it without permission you took away my choice in the matter - and that is not Libertarian. With the apple analogy it's like saying, well you weren't going to eat the apple anyway so I'll eat it and get some benefit rather than let you have it to sit there and rot. That's utilitarianism, not libertarianism. The apple belongs to me, I own it. Maybe I'll give it to you if you ask me, maybe I'll sell it to you, maybe I'll just let it rot... it doesn't matter - it's my choice. Take to the furthest extremes of Libertarianism, copyright should be perpetual and never ending. That becomes oppressive in my opinion. But the kind of libertarian argument against copyright is just an attempt to justify piracy in a digital age. I don't think you can have an ideologically pure justification of piracy without completely abandoning every social contract we have. But the fact is People will always engage in some level of piracy, the zealots in the lobbying arms of entertainment companies will never be able to stamp it out and are foolish to try. But on the other hand, it's not entirely ethical to be engaged in it either.

[@popocake]

Well, see, that's the thing: Yes, there is work and resources involved in the arrangements of data to form a novel, a music, a video, a game or whatnot, sure, and I don't believe there'd be anyone who'd disagree with that. And sure, all that work, time and resources used are "scarce" goods, since any particular combination of them that are spent in project A can never be used at the same time in project B. But it's not because "scarce" goods are involved in the production of something that this something's also automatically "scarce". The Let's both agree that that's a fallacy. If you work hard in an orchard to produce apples, it's not the work and time and resources involved in the production of apples that makes your apple a "scarce" good, but its inherent characteristic of being "scarce": If I take one apple from you, that one apple cannot be enjoyed by anyone else at the same time and with the same quality as me. Like the majority of material things that exist in our world, its "scarcity" is an inherent feature of existence, regardless of how it came to be. A wild-grown apple's just as "scarce" as the apple you're growing in your orchard, even if there's zero labor involved in its growth and even if its completely ownerless. That being the case, we cannot say that a set of data can be considered "scarce" just because there was "scarce" goods involved in its assembly. We need to search for its inherent characteristics to see if "scarcity" applies and it seems quite clear that there is no "scarcity" in any set of data that can be copied in such a way that both the copy and the copied goods are identical and can be used simultaneously without depriving anyone of its full content and usefulness. Say, if i write down "I am", does it mean that "I am" becomes my property? Of course not. If I write "I am popocake and was born in Brazil (and thus have poor English)", does it mean that what I wrote's my property? No, of course not. But if I go on and write a poem, a music, a game, a movie or a biography based on those initial words, then somehow that set of data becomes exclusively mine... because of reasons? It makes no sense. Sure, the book in which I wrote my thoughts's mine. But the content inside it, if someone happens to copy it, is not mine to dispose of. We may read the same exact words at the same time, but I'm no worse off because he's reading it too. Because ideas are not "scarce".

[@popocake]

Oh, BTW, I've never seen anyone argue that something's "utilitarianism, not libertarianism" before. I mean, sure, the majority of libertarians nowadays follow a natural rights approach to philosophy, but there are a lot of utilitarian libertarians too.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

In a business ethics class we did a whole unit on the conflict of utilitarianism vs libertarianism. I'm not taking the credit or blame for inventing it. ;) So we both agree that the creation of intellectual property requires the implementation of scarce resources. I will give you also that once a work is created and it can be copied ad infinitum it basically loses its scarcity. But follow that logic out -basic supply and demand economics: what happens when there's an infinite supply of something? The value drops to zero. If the good is no longer scarce, it is no longer valuable. Then why would any rational agent put scarce resources such as time and money into production of a worthless product? That's why intellectual property needs to exist - to create scarcity - and that's the rationale behind both the Statute of Anne style copyright and the Berne Convention style. The scarcity is not in the words themselves, but in the _permission_ to copy - a right to access - it's even in the word itself - copy _right_. Again that's where that so called libertarian argument fails to be libertarian - the act of copying or stealing (I'll call a spade a spade in that situation), is violating the rights and intents of the creator. Done on a large enough scale, you actually destroying any value from scarcity that the original Intellectual Property was set up to protect in the first place. Lastly on your point of when does something "become copyrightable" - Ideas themselves are not copyrightable. Neither are facts. There is a line somewhere where a work goes from just something jotted down to actually something that protectable. This is called the "threshold of originality" and it does bring up some interesting cases (like... is a telephone book copyrightable?) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

[@popocake]

Well, I'm glad we both agree that IP deals with "non-scarce" goods and as such's just an artificial way to prohibit the behavior of people who could otherwise be free to copy things free of charge -- ie. they'd have to pay for the means and work involved in the act of copying, sure, but they wouldn't be charged for doing so. Also, let's remember that "value" is not inherently linked to the notion of "scarcity". Very famously, WinRAR actually allows its product to be copyed by anyone who wants to do so, basically free of charge, but its "non-scarcity" does not damage its "value" in the eye of its user-base. Also, you get the full "value" of a copy of a set of data and if I copy your copy, that does not "devalue" your copy of the same set of data. We both get to enjoy its full value at the same time. There's no theft involved here, because my copying of your copy does not robs you of your means to use and get full "value" out of your copy. If I steal your apple, you're robbed of the use and "value" of said apple, but that's not the case with most sets of data. Theft and copying are distinctly different actions, not at all the same thing. So, if we both agree that there's no inherent "scarcity" on most sets of data and that this characteristic does not "devalue" these sets of data, and if we both agree that there's no inherent immorality on the act of copying, then we're only NOW dealing with questions of utilitarianism. Your stance, I'd assume, since you basically already stated it, is that there's social utility in maintaining artificial ways to create "scarcity" over some quite contrive, subjective and arbitrally fixed sets of data. But! Well, that's not my stance. Or the libertarian view on intellectual property, for that matter. I do believe that there are enough incentives in place in the world we live in for people to work on their ideas and to remain creative regardless of IP. Quite on the contrary, actually: I do believe that IP laws dampens innovative thinking and that the artificially created "scarcity" it brings forth actually harms creative progress rather than promote it. But, well, unfortunatelly I'll be leaving tomorrow to an area without internet for some days, so maybe our conversation may be reaching an end here... I'll leave you with a video, though, and if you're kind enough to watch it and resume the conversations next week, then smell you later! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYvKfX2hn5ugZqMm32s

[@mikhailsch5212]

Thank you!

[@SaturnCanuck]

Excellent!

[@rbondy008]

You so deserve more subs

[@warrenbradford2597]

So that is how the Stationers company influenced the creation of copyright. They were trying to create bills to shield themselves of negative press.

[@SlapstickGenius23]

The somewhat controversial European Union copyright law does have many good ideas. I do not want to infringe copyright on European soil, I just have to credit artists instead.

[@Ram-lr6ud]

This is an amazing video

[@Attila_Beregi]

i love your videos :) don't know if it's okay to suggest topics, or if it's worth to do a standalone video on this, but i was always curious how the film productions work. You know, the "x pictures presents" in association with "y films" and "z entertainment" and so on, sometimes 5-6-7 of these. what's the deal with this? thanks :)

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Thank you! We always welcome suggestions (if we do them or not is a different question) :P This however is a great question. We kind of glance at it in our Who's Who in Credit Sequence (kzbin.info/www/bejne/eabXiH9udtFpZ6c) and History of the Titles Sequences (kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpWwmKd-jdyNlbc). But frankly - we've never really gave a fully satisfactory answer to that. But I have plans to rectify that. Next year I was start a project which will cover the history of all the major Hollywood studios - I'll begin with a video that looks at the studio system itself. The modern studio system is not anything like the old studios... so when you're seeing all those different logos, it is really all those different companies providing a piece of the production puzzle.

[@Attila_Beregi]

thanks for the response! well yeah i've seen those and i was missing some small pieces, hence i brought it up now :) i kind of figured it must be some financial/legal stuff. i'm looking forward to that video (if it really happens anyway) !

[@JogLab]

Wonderful video!

[@Tobbeh99]

24:08 "but culture is thriving right now, especially because of technology". ... ... emm no... not really. It's not like you need technology to make culture. Beethoven wrote his symphonies with just ink and paper, no need for an iphone or other techonology stuff. So no better technology doesn't lead to better culture and art. It does lead to more and faster spread of culture. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a different debate. But I wouldn't say that technology makes culture better. Hard to even say if a certain culture is good or bad, kind of subjective.

[@AdityaMehendale]

Superb analysis and presentation! As a case-study, what do you think of the censorship of "Adult Wednesday Addams" on KZbin (which I see as a brilliant work on its own) by the rights-holders of "The Addams Family" franchise? Would you consider this censorship a right-to-fair-use violation?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Aditya Mehendale I haven't seen it but just reading about it, it really sounds like it was going beyond fair use and parody into infringing territory. Just imagining the show, I don't think they were mocking the character as using the character to mock modern sensibilities... That's not a parody because it would have been what the original creators would be doing if they remade the series. A analogy would be doing an Adult Harry Potter but instead of making him a fat slob you kept the same tone and just continued the storyline. I may be wrong but the case is strong enough to warrant a day in court in front of a judge. I doubt the Creator wanted to go there. I have no doubt it was really good but that's the truth is when fan art gets too good (or too rich), it rightfully raises alarm bells.

[@filanfyretracker]

I kinda wonder what are the actual views on format shifting of content. The customer is not distributing that Blu-Ray Rip its just going on their home theater PC for quick recall and the ability to watch a film without the commercials found on some home video today.

[@Mordajo]

Thank you so much, I really love your Videos, they're so insightful and extensive! But I think you made a mistake with the Jonathan Swift-quote. Apparently it's not from Swift but from Daniel Defoe (1660 - 1731). Source: Ronan Deazley: On the Origin of the Right to Copy: Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteenth Century Britain (1695-1775), p.32

[@gmanley1]

So, copyright exist because someone was angry that their copy of a book was used without their permission…. I wish that didn't make any sense.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

No, copyright exists so people can actually make a living in the world where copying stuff exists.

[@mankriter]

how about a video on 3-D technology or home made post production work?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's a good topic although 3D seems to have really fallen out of favor in the past few years.

[@mankriter]

Filmmaker IQ I agree. Yet 3D has a story of its own had an impressing reboot story aftet Avatar release and this could be a cinema narration on its own. To be honest I think more viewers would like to have an insight on post production. What it is about what you can and what you should never try at home as well as dcp and how do you extract your film before distribution in general.

[@Schmidtelpunkt]

Maybe rather than 3d have a look at different technologies which kind of failed to revolutionize cinema on all kinds of levels. Eg. it is interesting how surround sound dropped out of fashion in home theatre, although it had a golden age directly after the success of the DVD. And how everybody has a 3d capable TV or beamer and nobody uses it. Which then could be interesting when discussing VR in that context, which will fail the same way and the same reasons, but just like 3d might still find a niche.

[@OgatRamastef]

Physical and intelectual property are things that make some sense for us in the current stage of human society, but it´s just a paradigm. Our institutions and relations are complex, we have to deal with a enormous force that tends to keep us down obeying many unjustified authorities that sell themselves as "indispensable to keep the order". But at the end, if we thing pragmatically, any type of property represents some kind of robery : (

[@IronFilmVR]

It is still super suspicious how the copyright terms in the USA increase every time Mickey Mouse is about to expire....

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Copyright terms also extend every time Al Jolson's The Jazz Singer is about to expire too... If you feel that suspicious, go ahead and watch Steamboat Willie for Free (without ads) on Disney's Official Animation Channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHPKmJukhqtpe5Y

[@IronFilmVR]

But can I go ahead and remix Steamboat Willie? Nope! :-/ www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+IronFilmVR So what? You can't just go take your neighbor's car for a joy ride either. You want to remix the idea of a mouse driving a steam boat with something else... Go ahead. As long as you make your own work and make it clear Disney is not involved, your clear to do so.

[@sleeexs]

@@FilmmakerIQ YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR

[@ChaunceyGardener]

Gotta copy this video to my channel.

[@salmanhussain92]

hello sir... i was wondering.... how do you make your videos...

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Stay tuned in a couple weeks, we're going to do a live show where I give you guys a studio tour and show you my process.

[@Nukle0n]

I still see people blame Disney for this, and people get upset with me when I tell them to watch this video lol

[@FilmmakerIQ]

There's a popular channel with a video on copyright that repeats the myth. They also imagine if Star Wars fell in the public domain and how great it would be to have tons of Star Wars movies come out every year... that prediction didn't hold up very well...

[@stephenpursley8730]

Good video. However, it contains a small error. For works made for hire and anonymous or pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from publication or 120 years (not 125) from creation, whichever is shorter. My information source is US Copyright Office Circular 1: Copyright Basics.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

ah good catch.

[@piyuspradhan]

Nice video

[@StockAvuryah]

This video is really great and certainly has to be shared for everyone to see, especially here on youtube. I'll do my part, do yours.

[@mythdusterds]

I think there needs to be another video on fair use because a bunch of KZbinrs refers to fair use when referring to their content on movie trailer or film reviews or other content they make.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Good idea - we may want to revisit this and some other issues regarding copyright :)

[@jupiterkansas]

Please do, because fair use is actually a part of copyright, and to talk about copyright without covering fair use makes it seem like it's a separate thing. Copyright does not give complete and unlimited control of a work to the creator, and fair use outlines exactly how the public may use that author's work even when it's under copyright. It's a fundamental and one of the most important aspects of copyright. It's also the part that copyright holders don't like you to talk about.

[@Pauldjreadman]

Book copyright sounds very similar to the film censorship history.

[@Frisenette]

The original fourteen years never had anything to do with length of the average human life. If you can’t profit and make use of your work and get way ahead of any competition in fourteen years or so, chances are you never will.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's kinda bullshit.... Most great artists are never recognized as great artists during their lifetime. And there are lots of instances where someone becomes famous much later in life... I don't think it's very much fair for publishers to raid a successful older's writer's earlier catalog for freebies. Besides, the current copyright philosophy isn't entirely predicated on commerce - it's based on the rights you have to the things you create. The marker for copyright isn't about whether something is profitable or not, it's a natural right to own the things that you toiled to create.

[@SatanicJamnic]

Great video, but this time, you got worse quality color keying and a LOT of noise. Bad light?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

No idea what you're seeing. You may have gamma set too high on your monitor if you're seeing noise.

[@SatanicJamnic]

Nope. You got a lot of noise on hair and dark parts of shirt. What ISO did you used?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

ISO 800. Your monitor settings are off if you're seeing noise.

[@kakurerud7516]

I see the noise too. On my computers and phones (apple and android)

[@SatanicJamnic]

Kakureru, of COURSE thats OUR fault. We all have bad monitors, not his video quality is shitty. Of course.

[@NatesFilmTutorials]

I own this comment

[@lancecombes]

Yes you do, good for you.

[@JelenaXOXO208]

Outstanding.

[@OfflineSetup]

Wait a second, does this mean I can't go to a movie theatre and film it on my phone??????

[@damedley75]

Good video, even though it's for and I'm against copyright law

[@ДимаНовиков-б4й]

`Why skin is so smooth? Strong noise reduction or beauty purposes?

[@da8693]

有中文字幕嗎？

[@FilmmakerIQ]

对不起还没有，但如果你认识可以做的人，我们有社区翻译。 The question was Do we have Chinese subtitles. I wrote back: Sorry not yet but if you know someone that can do it we have Community translations. Hopefully Google Translate stated true to those words.

[@IronFilmVR]

I would very *very* strongly disagree with the idea that intellectual property has similarities to rights for physical property! This short book is a worthwhile read: mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 It shows how even libertarians, who are famous (infamous?) for being extremely strong supporters of property rights, can oppose intellectual property on a principled basis.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

The Libertarians are not all in agreement on this. From Ayn Rand, "Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.” From what I've read on the libertarian discussion against intellectual property, the arguments really don't understand fundamental principals of copyright. If implemented, they would dismantle basically everything in the entertainment industry.

[@IronFilmVR]

I wasn't making the point *all* libertarians oppose IP (heh, not just IP.... get 10 libertarians in a room and on anything, you'll get 11 different viewpoints! IP is an area which can split them, just like say pro-live vs pro-choice can). But that it is interesting that even in the area of the most strongly pro property rights people, that a substantial proportion of them still oppose IP (as it can be easy enough to shrug off criticisms of IP from some other areas as being "oh it is just because they don't even believe in the owner's property rights in the first place!". However that is never a criticism you can level against libertarians! If anything they take property rights "too seriously"?!) & I think it is incorrect to say they "don't understand fundamental principals of copyright", not at all, but rather that they just outright oppose it. Yes, it would mean turning upside down many business models, but they'd argue it leads to an overall better result for humanity.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

No, I mean they *REALLY* don't understand the core concepts of copyright. I've read lots and lots of arguments - anti-copyright folks really don't understand the relationship of the author to the work which goes far beyond just commercial - hence why you will never read about the Berne Convention in any of these arguments. The world that the anti-copyright libertarian imagines really is as close to reality as a functioning communist society - we could have utopia only if... The genius of copyright is it actually aligns the desires of authors (to make money and protect their own work and ego) with the desires of society (have more works available). Numbers prove it... look around. Do you see a dearth of media? Are there not enough books, music, movies, tv shows, video games being made today? I'm not saying copyright is responsible for all of that, but where is this oppression of copyright?

[@IronFilmVR]

Two seconds on google turns up several references to libertarians mentioning the Berne Convention, it certainly isn't unknown: mises.org/library/no-more-free-trade-treaties-its-time-genuine-free-trade mises.org/blog/mountain-ip-legislation www.stephankinsella.com/2014/11/balancing-ip-civil-liberties-transcript/ > "but where is this oppression of copyright?" Errr.... seriously? There is heaps of problems with IP!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It mentions it but does not recognize the shift in authorship thinking that occurred with it. Yes, seriously. Outside of Orphan works, Please explain the systematic oppression of copyright which goes beyond just merely, I want to copy something without paying for it.

[@Xtant-audio]

What about video on copyleft?

[@seanramsdell4172]

Do you think cinema is dying or just hot air?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Sean Ramsdell all hot air. Okay maybe summer box office numbers are down a few percent this year... But people are consuming media like crazy. The industry is in a constant state of flux, so much so that no decade in movie history resembles any other decade.

[@sel2575]

1:20

[@zusurs]

Thanks for a great video - interesting and educational as always! As for the topic of copyright laws - those are simply ridiculous. As a developer (content creator) myself, I’ve always advocated making source code (or at least important parts of it) free after some time after release of the software or app for other new developers to play around and learn from. And I admire when prominent advanced business figures like Elon Musk do the same with their patents - those are the people who ACTUALLY push the world, innovation and imagination forwards, not the money-centric morons who copyright even their own farts, god forbid somebody to replicate them... Lifetime + 70 years, are you kidding me?! Maximums copyright lenght should be maximum some 20 years since release/publication!!

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Artūrs Savickis not sure if you watched it if your conclusion is copyright is ridiculous ;) Patents are a different type of IP and in that case, there usefulness to society does outweigh perpetual ownership which is why they're relatively short (20 something years)

[@coreyroberson4550]

Artūrs Savickis - Some people give away their rights by putting their stuff in public domain, which is a choice. However, I strongly believe that creators should be able to retain their rights if they so desire. Creation is work, and the creator has the right to protect that work and even to profit from it. Let's use your 20 year example. You spend a couple years writing a story, get it published. It becomes popular, and you write a few sequels, and then your 20 year deadline comes up. Suddenly, within your lifetime, your characters/world/story are up for grabs so that any "money-centric moron" can write exploitative fan fiction using your characters and worlds, can even call it by the same name and say it's a new sequel, and can insert whatever sleaze/garbage they want; they can even turn your main character into a neo-Nazi and have them involved in atrocities that are now connected to your name, and you have no issue with that? And it's not just unauthorized fan fiction on a blog in an unknown corner of the internet, but actual published books being sold for profit in stores. I have a problem with that. Copyright laws protect reputations as well as wallets.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

@Corey Roberson Excellent point - one of the best explanations of "moral rights" I've seen.

[@L0RDK3Y]

Geez, a war over a book?

[@RandoomDude]

I think we can all agree IP is stupid and it should go away forever

[@FilmmakerIQ]

This comment is stupid and should go away forever

[@AlphaYellow]

I completely disagree, creators of IPs don't work for free and have to always be properly paid for their works, either from their own effort, or license fees from third-parties, problem is when big corporations abuse of their huge power to enforce their copyright in cases where clearly their content is being used fairly according to fair use laws in the specific country, or they just want to silence opposing opinions. That last one is called censorship.

[@RandoomDude]

@@AlphaYellow No, working on a product and marketing it are two different things, a creator won't always be paid for their work that's the nature of reality, instead, we should focus on the broader picture of freedom of information and right to work on any idea, worked on previously or not, and to extend the idea to as many as people as possible and create competition for the best form of that idea to come to light, and in doing so create a broader range of wealth for all the people who can profit off of that ideal version, either by being able to get it to the largest amount of people, creating the most convenient availability or the highest quality version of the idea, simply being the origin of that idea doesn't give you the right to money and business deals. You might think it's sad, and indeed it might be hard on the individual, but long term a lot more people profit from that system, and the individual who got screwed over in the short term on his idea, will benefit long term from the idea growing wings and accruing in value in capital that he will then get additional opportunities for new ideas and business that woudn't have been there previously, it just grows and grows unfettered by goverment rules that have no basis in natural rights.

[@RandoomDude]

The freedom to reiterate on concepts and ideas without worrying about a corporation coming down with the full backing of IP laws preventing you from having any chance of computing fairly on merit of ideas alone is the point that needs to be protected.

[@KarlBunker]

I almost didn't watch this because I thought it would be boring. Far from it!

[@ricarleite]

Creative Commons exists.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+ricarleite not as a legal construct yet.

[@j.d.thorne8708]

3:19 really? XD

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Don't be hatin' cause I just had two golden ages back to back.

[@dialectixemcee2428]

I love this channel but the concept that the bourgeois state apparatus is some "arbitrary" "neutral" party is absured, its a state of the capitlaists for capital to organize them and exert thier dictatorship. The state enforces the interests of capital and now in the rise of fascism is actually fusing with capital

[@schmoldovia]

very interesting but i totally disagree - when a work is sold once (in as many copies as wished within a year) it should be free to republish in agreement with the author. every author with his creative ideas is standing on the shoulders of ancient authors. every author like everybody else should be supported by the community with a basic income. we shouldn't be strangled by lawyers of major companies. they take the profit from copyright restrictions. a hard working carpenter can sell his work once, why should john carpenter be allowed to sell his work again and again?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+schmoldovia pardon my French but that's one of stupidest comments I've read. Sold once? What the hell does that mean?? So a musician sells a song once and then a major multinational corporation can come around and pick it up for their ads for free? You realize that the biggest beneficiary of weak copyright is big corporations right? It's the story of the Stationers again... They own the means of production and distribution. A hard working Carpenter sells his work once but can demand an exorbitant price. John Carpenter sells his work at a much lower price. If you look at it from a utility standpoint, the amount of value and enjoyment created by all the movies he created vastly outweighs the value created by a single wood carving. Of course we all stand on the shoulders of Giants. But you sound like someone that has no inkling of what it's like to create... You have no concept of the deep emotional connection and persistence it requires.

[@brendanward2991]

Current copyright laws are ridiculous. Creators deserve to be paid for their labour, but once they have been proportionately remunerated, the work should be considered public domain. Whatever the law of the land might say, there is then a categorical imperative upon us all to "steal" their work. Putting more money in their pockets is to acquiesce in unethical greed. Putting money in the pockets of their heirs for a further seventy years is indefensible. It is bad enough paying the creator over and over and over again for the same work of art, but paying someone who contributed nothing to the work over and over again is reprehensible.

[@Schmidtelpunkt]

So what you are saying is that slow selling works are somehow less worth than fast selling works, and therefore the creator getting paid is unethical? When you apply such absolute rules in ignorance of the market which shaped the law, you will cripple the output. There are points one can discuss - eg. whether 70 years after the death (instead of release) really reflects the current reality. But just hacking into it like the gordian knot for ideological purposes doesn't move the debate a single inch forward, rather the opposite.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

What is missing in this discussion is what copyright is currently wanted for and what we want to accomplisch with it. That should actually be the fundamental reasoning. Only then can you figure how you want to impliment it and how rights are distributed. Obviously copyright is needed. But should it apply to corperations? Should it be transferable? Or should the soul creator be the only one to have a right to copyright over a piece of work and he decides if he wants it or not. It is a dificult question and i don't know either, but ii never hear anything about those sides of the discussion and how things would actually change if things would be done differently.

[@brianrcVids]

Just because a notion is old does not make it good or wise. Copyright protection is a government granted monopoly that sets goods at an artificially high price leading to enormous market inefficiencies. Student text books, for example, are only expensive because of copyright protection. There are other ways to reward authors for their work that are far more efficient for the economy. Check out this paper and also look up "Artistic Freedom Vouchers." cepr.net/publications/reports/are-copyrights-a-textbook-scam-alternatives-for-financing-textbook-production-in-the-21st-century

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+brianrcVids oh please... Student textbooks are expensive because professors and schools create the artificial monopolies by requiring you to buy a specific book, not copyright itself. So long as professors and textbook publishers remain bed fellows the student is going to get pinched. Artistic Freedom Vouchers are a cluster fuck waiting to happen. Even it's opening statement is based on a lie... Modern copyright is not based on feudalism... You can't ignore every development in the 19th and 20th century for the sake of your convenient argument. All these vouchers will create is a body of work which is just ripe for pillaging by other interests. Need a popular song for that Superbowl ad that you're paying $30 million for? Don't pay a musician a hefty royalty just grab the number one song from the freebie pile. If a famous singer needs a new hit, just redo a song from the Voucher pile and never have to worry about royalties. What will really happen is nothing of value will be created for that fund. Any good artist will opt to protect their work and you'll be left with amateurs and anti-IP crusaders. If you need proof, look at the difference in stock resources from Archive.org and Getting Images. Just because it's old doesn't mean it doesn't have wisdom. Being unwilling to explore and understand history is both arrogant and ignorant. You think you are better than the billions that came before and you haven't got a clue how stupid that is. Be willing to let go of traditions but not before you understand why they were there in the first place.

[@brianrcVids]

I think we're a lot in agreement. There is a lot more to that paper than the opening statement. It's an outline of a new way to compensate authors for their work, and a lot more of them, than the current system which has a lot of problems. Have you ever heard of open source software? You know this Internet thing we're using? What browser are you using? There are plenty of great things that are created by people that are given away in the freebie pile that have enhanced and enrich our society. Knowledge is built on the thoughts and ideas that came before and we should celebrate that and foster that in a way that compensates creativity without creating artificial IP prisons. We're only hurting ourselves and the innovation to come.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Copyright does not preclude someone from giving away something. It gives the author the CHOICE to protect their work or not to protect their work. Like this video itself - I could put this on DVD and try to sell it, our I could put it on KZbin and let you all watch it for free. Thoughts and ideas aren't copyrightable in the first place - only expressed forms of those ideas. So you can't copy a song and sell it as if it was your own. That voucher nonsense is a terrible idea - you think it's a way to compensate authors but it's a really a way to deprive authors a fair market value of their work all in service to... I don't know what exactly. $40k a year? Please... to some that might be a lot, to others that doesn't cover the cost of supplies. The copyright system doesn't pit desires of authors against desires of society. It never has - it prevents the desires of society from crushing the authors. With copyright - EVERYBODY benefits. Open your eyes! What artificial IP prison do you think we live in with countless hours of KZbin videos being uploaded, endless variety of books just a click away, More movies and TV shows available to you than ever before (yes for a nominal fee). Is this really all about just being able to avoid spending $10 for HBO Amazon pass so you can watch Game of Thrones for free??